[98403] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Sun Apr 13 07:04:25 2014
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:03:39 -0400
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <002a01cf56cb$adac6520$09052f60$@flyingstart.ca>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 4/12/2014 11:51 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
>> -pu' and -ta' are not connected to the PAST, they are connected to TENSE,
> in that their perfect usage tells us that an event occurs prior to the time
> context.
>
> Is that a typo? If not I have to disagree that they are connected to tense,
> unless you mean in the loose sense that many completed actions are in the
> past, such that perfective aspect and past tense (provided by context or
> timestamps) will probably occur together.
If -pu' transmits the idea that the verb happens prior to the time
context, this is tense. This is the definition we all grew up with on
this list.
If true, -pu' (and -ta') tells us about both tense and aspect. In
sentences like {vIleghpu'}, the meaning is clearly, "I saw it prior to
now." That's tense. If I say {wa'leS vIleghpu'}, that's STILL me saying
I saw it prior to the time context, even though that context, and the
seeing, is in my future.
In sentences like {qaja'pu'}, we are getting perfective aspect, without
tense. The telling is being treated as a single unit without internal
structure. It happens; it's completed. We've also seen examples, which I
can't think of right now, where the meaning is plainly that an action
was ongoing and then comes to a stop when it's done. That's also aspect
(it could be called cessative aspect). Both are encoded into -pu' and -ta'.
Now, if someone wants to propose a truly tenseless definition of -pu'
and -ta' that doesn't include the idea of "prior to the time context,"
I'm all ears. Either way, Okrand's apparently strange overuse of these
suffixes is explained: he's using the purely perfective aspect.
>> I can't think of a way that this would make sense with a perfective
> aspect, since as of today tomorrow's killing is not completed as a whole
> unit.
>
> Wait, you do disagree with wa'leS HoHlu'pu'? Would you also reject wa'leS
> tujchoHpu' bIQ? How would you answer the canonical question in a complete
> sentence?
No, I just don't see a way for the a truly perfective meaning to be the
one to come across. I think this is just a deficiency of my imagination;
I'm not saying it's ungrammatical. Given more context, I'm sure I could
make up my mind.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
